tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 27 08:57:07 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: double-checking

DloraH ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

I agree that neither are /necessary/.  I mentioned only the second sentence
because I also agree with you that "Our gods are dead" certainly doesn't
need it.  But with the second sentence, "One thousand Years ago...", tho not
necessary, would be more clear.  We can't be more accurate with the date
because we (even klingons) don't know when it happened, but we do know that
at the point in time 1000 years ago it had already been completed; it did
not occur at 1000 years ago, because that is when Kahless was around, and it
happened before Kahless.


DloraH


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terrence Donnelly
> Sent: Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:39
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: double-checking
> 
> Neither {-pu'} or {-ta'} are past tense markers, and
> you can easily imagine future completion sentences:
> {wa'Hu' vIHoHta'} "(By) tomorrow I will have killed
> him."  One tendancy of beginners is to assume that
> when writing a story, one of these suffixes goes
> on every verb, since we (usually) write stories
> in English in the past tense.  But the only verbs
> that would really take one of these suffixes are
> verbs describing actions completed _before_ the
> time of the story.  So simply describing an
> event that occured in the past doesn't mean that
> the verbs take the completion suffixes.
> 
> I think this is more a stylistic issue than a
> grammar one.  To me, adding either suffix draws
> attention to the fact of completion, while the
> unsuffixed verb simply states the fact.  So the
> question becomes whether it is necessary to the
> meaning of the sentence to draw attention to the
> completion.  I also tend to think that Klingons
> tend to use their language efficiently: if a
> suffix isn't absolutely necessary, they don't use
> it.
> 
> "Our gods are dead" isn't a statement of past tense
> or of completion; it's a statement of their current
> state of non-existence. "Klingon warriors killed
> them a millenium ago" does refer to a past event,
> but the time stamp {wa'SaD ben} clearly establishes
> the time, and since we know the gods are all
> dead, the warriors must have completed the job.
> I would interpret the sentence with {-pu'} to
> mean "A thousand years ago, the ancient Klingon
> warriors had already killed them".  This puts a
> weird emphasis on the completion: if the thousand-
> year mark isn't when they killed them, then what
> is the significance of referring to a
> thousand years ago, and why don't you just tell us
> when they did kill them.
> 
> So, I still contend that neither verb needs {-pu'}.
> 
> -- ter'eS
> 
> --- Shane MiQogh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > It was done, completed, so i dont' see why -pu'
> > wouldn't be used.
> > Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> > wrote:  You don't really need the {-pu'} suffixes on
> > the
> > verbs, but otherwise it looks fine, to me anyway.
> > 
> > -- ter'eS
> > 
> > --- naHQun wrote:
> > 
> > > So my manger had me translate this sentence for
> > him,
> > > and then write it in pIqaD on his whiteboard in
> > his
> > > office.
> > > 
> > > "Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew
> > > them a millennium ago."
> > > 
> > > Which I translated as:
> > > 
> > > > SuvwI'pu' tIQ.>
> > > 
> > > qar'a'?
> > > Or do I need to be thankful it was a whiteboard
> > and
> > > not a tattoo?
> > > 
> > > ~naHQun
> > > 
> > > p.s. My e-mail spell checker told me 
> > > should be "Klingon".
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level